IMPORTANT POINT
When it is moved by an aggrieved party to expunge any passage from the order or judgment of a subordinate court it must be fully satisfied that the passage complained of is wholly irrelevant and unjustifiable, that its retention on the records will cause serious harm to the person to whom it refers and that its expunction will not affect the reasons for the judgment or order.

ORDER

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J— The brief facts are that one Ram Avtar Jaggi, a leader of Nationalist Congress party was shot at 11.40 p.m. on 4.6.2003 and in this connection, a First Information Report was lodged in P.S. Moudhapara, Raipur as F.I.R. No. 104/2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 307 I.P.C. This F.I.R. was lodged at the instance of V.K. Pandey, the Station House Officer, P.S. Moudhapara Raipur. Ram Avtar Jaggi died in the hospital. On 5.6.2003 at 2.15 a.m., another report vide F.I.R. No. 105/2003 was again registered for the same incident under Section 302 I.P.C. on the instance of Satish Jaggi, son of the deceased. Thereafter, five accused persons were arrested in connection with Crime No. 104/2003 by the State Police and the charge-sheet was filed against them before the concerned Court. Later on, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 334/2003. It appears that during the course of trial, an application under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. was moved by the Additional Public Prosecutor for allowing a further investigation in the said case. This application was allowed and further investigation was permitted. Thereafter, on the instance of the State Government, the matter was handed over to the C.B.I. for further investigation and C.BI. then registered Crime No. R.C. 1/S/2004 dated 22.1.2004 under Sections 120-B, 302 and 427 I.P.C. and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. After completion of the investigation, the C.B.I. filed another charge-sheet against 31 persons, including the 5 accused persons of earlier crime number under Sections 120-B, 302, 427 & 201/34 I.P.C. and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. This case was also committed to the Court of Sessions on 8.9.2005 giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 329/2005, in which the judgment was delivered on 31.5.2007 and some of the accused persons were convicted and almost all the convicted accused persons have preferred their appeals, which are pending for disposal before this Court.

2. While passing the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.5.2007 in Sessions Trial No. 329/2005, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made the following observations/remarks writing the name of the petitioner vide Para-462 of the said judgment:

It is against the said observations/remarks made by the Sessions Court, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition for their expunction.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a veteran politician and has held the post of Cabinet Minster in the Central Cabinet and was elected as Member of Parliament (Lok-Sabha) for nine terms in past. He is the life President of the Indian Olympic Association, New Delhi. His father Late Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla was the former Chief Minister of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. His elder brother Late Pt. Shyama Charan Shukla was three times the Chief Minister of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and at the relevant time, the petitioner was appointed as the president of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) for the State of Chhattisgarh and as President he had appointed Ram Avtar Jaggi (since deceased) as the Treasurer of the State Unit of the NCP. His further contention is that the observations made by the Sessions Court are conjectural, stigmatic, uncalled for and disparaging. The petitioner was neither cited as a witness by the C.B.I. in the charge-sheet, nor he was summoned and examined during the course of trial either by prosecution or by accused persons and was also not summoned by the Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge made such observations/remarks against him. According to the petitioner, the remarks/observations have no foundation in reality besides being highly derogatory, stigmatic, scandalous, disparaging and they go against the reputation of the petitioner as they directly attribute false criminal motive on the part of the petitioner in falsely implicating Ajit Jogi and Amit Jogi in a hei